Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/989,110

NEW ALUMINUM ALLOYS HAVING BISMUTH AND/OR TIN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Examiner
ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Arconic Technologies LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
976 granted / 1279 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.0%
+11.0% vs TC avg
§102
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1279 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered. Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are pending wherein claims 1 and 15-16 are amended. Status of Previous Rejections The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (EP 1 413 636) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittebrood (US 2014/0061286). In regard to claim 1, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses aluminum base alloys having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below ([0011] and [0020-0030]). Element Instant Claim (weight percent) Wittebrood (‘286) (weight percent) Overlap Bi + Sn 0.5 – 3.0 0.03 – 0.50 Bi 0.5 Bi Si 0.50 – 4.0 0 – 1.2 0.5 – 1.2 Mg 0.30 – 2.5 0 – 1 0.3 – 1 Cu 0.25 – 1.5 0 – about 0.5 0.25 – about 0.5 Zn 0 – 2 0 – about 0.5 0 – about 0.5 Mn 0.05 – 1.5 0.05 – 2 0.05 – 1.5 Fe 0 – 0.70 0 – 1 0 – 0.7 Cr 0 – 0.35 0.03 – 0.4 0.03 – 0.35 Zr + V 0 – 0.25 each 0.03 – 0.3 Zr 0.03 – 0.25 Zr Sr 0 – 5 ppm 0 0 Al Balance Balance Balance The Examiner notes that the amounts of bismuth, tin, silicon, magnesium, copper, zinc, manganese, iron, chromium, zirconium, vanadium and strontium or the aluminum base alloys disclosed by Wittebrood (‘286) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of bismuth, tin, silicon, magnesium, copper, zinc, manganese, iron, chromium, zirconium, vanadium and strontium from the amounts disclosed by Wittebrood (‘286) because Wittebrood (‘286) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges. With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy comprises at least 0.20 wt.% excess silicon” in claim 1, at least [0016] of the instant specification and claim 5 teach that excess silicon is computed by “((wt.% Si)-((wt.% Fe)*0.333)-((wt.%Mg)/1.73)”. Since Wittebrood (‘286) teaches compositions such as one having 1.2 weight percent silicon, 0 weight percent iron and 0.3 weight percent magnesium, which would give an excess silicon of 1.0265, Wittebrood (‘286) reads on the claim. With respect to the recitation “wherein the aluminum alloy comprises at least 1.75 mol.% of Y, wherein Y is (mol.% Q phase + mol.% Al2Cu + mol.% Mg2Si) as calculated using PANDAT and a temperature of 340°F” in claim 1, Wittebrood (‘286) teaches a substantially similar composition. Therefore, at least 1.75 mol% of Y would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I. In regard to claim 2, Wittebrood (‘286) does not require the presence of tin and therefore reads on the claim ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 3, Wittebrood (‘286) does not require the presence of tin and therefore reads on the claim ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 4, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0.03 to 0.50 weight percent bismuth ([0011] and [0020-0030]). With respect to the recitation “comprising at least 0.30 wt.% excess silicon, wherein excess silicon is calculated from the formula ((wt.% Si)-((wt.% Fe)*0.333))-((wt.% Mg)/1.73)” in claim 5, Wittebrood (‘286) teaches compositions such as one having 1.2 weight percent silicon, 0 weight percent iron and 0.3 weight percent magnesium, which would give an excess silicon of 1.0265, Wittebrood (‘286) reads on the claim. In regard to claim 6, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0 to 1.2 weight percent silicon, which overlaps the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 7, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0 to 1 weight percent magnesium, which overlaps the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 8, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0 to about 0.5 weight percent copper, which overlaps the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 9, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0 to about 0.5 weight percent zinc, which overlaps the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). MPEP 2144.05 I. In regard to claim 10, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0 to 1 weight percent iron, which encompasses the range of the instant invention ([011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 11, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0.05 to 2 weight percent manganese, which encompasses the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 12, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses up to 0.25 weight percent titanium, which encompasses the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 13, Wittebrood (‘286) does not require the presence of strontium and thus it would only be present as an impurity ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 14, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0.03 to 0.50 weight percent bismuth and does not require the presence of indium and therefore reads on the claim ([0011] and [0020-0030]). In regard to claim 17, Wittebrood (‘286) discloses 0.03 to 0.50 weight percent lead, which overlaps the range of the instant invention ([0011] and [0020-0030]). With respect to the recitation “comprising not greater than 0.50 mol% Mg2Sn as calculated using PANDAT and a temperature of 340°F” in claim 18, Wittebrood (‘286) does not require the presence of tin and therefore reads on the claim ([0011] and [0020-0030]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 15, the prior art to Wittebrood (‘286) specifies an upper limit of 0.50 weight percent of bismuth (and tin) whereas instant claim 15 teaches a minimum of 0.65 weight percent of bismuth and tin and therefore claim 15 distinguishes from Wittebrood (‘286). The prior art to Matsuoka et al. (EP ‘636) teaches 0.02 to 2 mass percent of tin plus bismuth, but requires a minimum of 0.001 weight percent (or 10 ppm Strontium) whereas the upper limit of strontium in claim 15 is 5 ppm. Therefore, claim 15 distinguishes from Matsuoka et al. (EP ‘636). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601035
High Temperature Titanium Alloys
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595521
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING DIRECT REDUCED METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595535
CAST MAGNESIUM ALLOY WITH IMPROVED DUCTILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584196
HIGHLY CORROSION-RESISTANT ALUMINUM ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584194
LOW-OXYGEN ALSC ALLOY POWDERS AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+7.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1279 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month